It’s risky to make absolute statements about anything, and it’s even more perilous to make them about the possible outcome of a nomination contest that still won’t start for another 16 months, but I am fairly confident when I say that Palin has no chance of winning. There, I’ve told him.

I’ve gone over the reasons why she has no chance in as many ways as I can. There are structural reasons (the GOP does not reward insurgents and favors establishment-backed candidates) and organizational reasons (her organization remains minimal and insufficient). Her unpopularity with non-Republicans is enough to give even her most enthusiastic admirers pause, and many of her admirers don’t think she is qualified for the office. As I was suggesting recently, there is probably a higher bar to nominating a woman for President in the GOP than in the Democratic Party, and there would probably be resistance to using a presidential nomination for the sake of achieving a symbolic “first” by choosing a woman. On this point, I would add one more observation: Republicans have an excessive, some might say absurd, admiration for the office of the Presidency, and they are especially enamored of executive power in wartime, and nominating Palin for that office simply goes against too many of their presidential-cultist and militarist instincts that not even Palin’s own militarism will be enough to compensate.

Simon’s question about the “most serious human being” unintentionally points to the reason why Palin has no chance. In 2000, Republicans were presented with a Western “reform” governor with few real achievements to his name, minimal relevant experience, and no obvious qualifications for the position or expertise in any major areas of policy. He was publicly exuberant about his religiosity, practiced an “aw shucks” campaign style, littered his speeches and debates with colloquial language, and seemed not to be embarrassed that he knew little or nothing about most of the rest of the world. Like Palin, Bush was far from being stupid, but both of them seem to take delight in their lack of knowledge, as if it confirmed that their down-home facade was who they really are. Ten years ago, we were told by admiring pundits that voters weren’t interested in wonks or experts, but wanted someone who was “one of them.” Of course, Bush was the farthest thing from being “one of them” as he could be, but in his aggressive pursuit of mediocrity he managed to convince a surprisingly large number of people to entrust him with incredible power. When it became known that Bush liked to make decisions from his “gut,” this seemed to enthrall millions of people and put their minds at ease, as if “gut” decisions were more desirable because they were irrational. And, yes, he won election by slimmest of margins, and then he won one of the weakest re-election mandates in modern presidential history, and almost immediately Americans began to regret that outcome.

We have already given one obviously unqualified Western governor a chance to wreck the country in the last decade, and not even the Republican Party that continues to defend and like Bush is so clueless and self-destructive that it would go to the country with a female version of the disaster we just experienced. The other possible contenders Simon mentions are all flawed and unattractive in different ways, but none of them so fully embodies all of the flaws that made Bush such a poor President as Palin. Most of the public already knows this, and given a chance to choose anyone other than Palin the GOP will turn gratefully to one of the others so that they might have at least a fighting chance in two years.

“We have already given one obviously unqualified Western governor a chance to wreck the country in the last decade, and not even the Republican Party that continues to defend and like Bush is so clueless and self-destructive that it would go to the country with a female version of the disaster we just experienced.”

Your practical arguments against Palin’s chances are fairly strong, but then you undermine them by emphasizing the rationality of the GOP and GOP primary voters. People who consider an effort to reform health care as the first step in the Nazification of America do not deserve such a benefit of the doubt.

Don’t underplay the role Palin’s personality and work ethic plays in the simple fact that she’ll never, ever, seriously run for political office again. Remember, she had the chance to do the rigorous prep for running for President 2 years ago and she just didn’t do it. For instance, she could have prepared for the disastrous Couric interview and not come off as a dullard.

At the end of that losing campaign, she looked at all the fun, lucrative opportunities (book tours, high-paid speaking gigs, regular Fox News appearances, money, money, money) opened by running and she just couldn’t bring herself to finish her boring, relatively-unglamorous job as governor. Buh-bye Alaska.

Quite simply, pretending like she’s running for President is how she keeps her “Q” up, preserving those lucrative personal and media appearances, which in turn make sure that the powers-that-be in the GOP always kiss her behind, which then means that she has to always be seen as “running”. It’s a feedback loop that’s extremely rewarding to her.

In the unlikely event that she wins the nomination I’ll bet everything I have that she’ll back out of the race somehow.

I respect your writings more than Roger Simon’s (especially after his laughable piece presenting Michael Steele as a potential contender), but in this case I agree with him. I’m definitely on the side of those who think Palin has a good chance of being nominated (though I’m currently placing my bets more on Romney).

Your statement above is an important point of where we diverge. If Obama is unpopular by 2012, the Republicans will probably go with a realistically competent candidate. But if Obama is popular and his reelection looks all but inevitable, they might go with a personal favorite, similar to what they did when they nominated Goldwater in ’64.

Of course, we’re assuming Republican primary voters have a good sense of which candidates are most electable. The rise of Sharon Angle casts doubt on that hypothesis. If Angle somehow manages to win Reid’s seat this year, it might embolden Republicans to nominate someone like Palin for president. If she loses, and especially if their gains this year prove disappointing, it might knock some sense into them. You have more confidence in the GOP’s sense of self-preservation than I do.

Palin has zero political instincts. She will commit at least one major gaffe a week through an entire election cycle. Palin could win some votes in New Hampshire but will lose badly in New Hampshire and be eliminated by Super Tuesday.

That anyone is talking about Plain just demonstrates how weak the Republicans are. The 20 years of having the Bush Clan in charge meant that no new talent was developed. Look how no one who worked in any of the Bush Administration has become a significant leader. Look at how both Bushes picked VP’s who would never become president.

The Republicans are wasting their time being serious about 2012. They should just run a media friendly candidate, run on federal funds and waste no capital in a no win race.

“not even the Republican Party that continues to defend and like Bush is so clueless and self-destructive that it would go to the country with a female version of the disaster we just experienced.”

I don’t see evidence they have learned anything from the Bush years. They think they lost in 2006 and 2008 because of earmarks. They think the answer to our economic problems are tax cuts and trade deals. They think that extending unemployment insurance is immoral but spending on nation building overseas is a noble cause.

“Republicans have an excessive, some might say absurd, admiration for the office of the Presidency…”

They have absolutely nothing of the sort and the proof is the insane demonizing of our current president and the impeachment of Clinton. They may kowtow to REPUBLICAN presidents but they have zero respect for the office itself.

Otherwise, this piece is just a whole lot of applying “rational” thinking to an election – which is not a rational thing to do since elections are not inherently rational. Bush didn’t get re-elected in 2004 because people were being rational; he won because enough people voted out of fear to barely put him over the top (plus it helped to have a lousy cadidate running against him).

I doubt Palin can win the presidency, still I wouldn’t rule it out. But getting the nomination? I’m with Roger Simon, probably for the first time. I have no doubt it can happen, especially given the crop of charmless contenders she’ll be running against.

Daniel, I would be interested to hear your opinion of how/why Palin was the Republican pick for runner up to the president. Were the republican powers 100% sure that she would never have to step up into the position. Were they willing to risk a 75% chance that she would never be president. How much of a reckless gamble was Schmidt willing to take with his country.

I would love to see Palin in the race because I would love to see republicans digging up dirt and attacking her. Unfortunately I think she won’t run because she realizes the job is too much work but maybe I’m giving her too much credit.

“Look at how both Bushes picked VP’s who would never become president.”

I hate to quibble, but, actually, George W. Bush picked a VP who did become president: Dick Cheney.

Although I don’t think Palin will run, I disagree with your assessment of her chances. You start off by mentionng New Hampshire, but the race begins with Iowa. Huckabee demonstrated in 2008 that an outsider with fundamentalist roots can do really well in the Iowa caucases. Palin will not be an unknown outsider if she runs in 2012, and, unless there is another candidate (or candidates) splitting the fundamentalist vote, such as Huckabee himself, she has a good shot at carrying Iowa. Like Huckabee, she probably won’t do well in N.H., but after N.H. comes South Carolina, where her endorsement of a badly trailing Nikki Haley shot Haley to the top of the polls and eventally to victory in the Republican primary for governor. So she has undeniable appeal down there, as she would have in most parts of the South, which, based on early reports, Romney has written off as a result of his performance there in 2008. With Palin in the race, the 2012 campaign for the Republican nomination race stands a good chance of being deadlocked, with no clear winner. But, until we know exactly who is going to be in the field, it is hard to judge who will be the Republican nominee in 2012.

“Remember, she had the chance to do the rigorous prep for running for President 2 years ago and she just didn’t do it.”

In all fairness to Sarah Palin, she was plopped down in the middle of the last few months of a campaign for U.S. President with absolutely zero time to prepare. Most of our sitting governors, Congressman and Senators would have made complete asses of themselves in the same situation. And from what I know of any political campaign, there is no time to do any sort of rigorous prep after it’s already underway.

Now, Palin’s seeming indifference to educating herself on policy and such since the campaign…that’s a bird of a different color.

@BMurray – If progressives started following Gingrich’s lead back in Sept 2008, when Gingrich and Robert Reich seemed to be on the same page, then by now the GOP would have disbanded. But the progressives rejected grandpa Newt and within less than a year he went back into his overly obvious opposition tactics. Grandpa might try again to sell himself as a centrist with Palin riding shotgun because he might be about as unelectable as Obama was according to Hillary. If Obama begins to overly rely on Bill Clinton this fall then we might have the opportunity to relive the mid nineties. Grandpa is smart.